W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [DOM4] EventTarget as first class citizen

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:58:26 -0800
Message-Id: <13961182-5298-4206-B4E3-6A7ED9522C69@jumis.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
On Mar 5, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 15:40, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> Note, I don't think that anyone is suggesting to add
>> .parentNode/.eventTargetParent to the EventTarget interface. But
>> rather just to objects instantiated through the constructor described
>> in this thread.
> FWIW, some JS libraries have custom EventTarget implementations and
> they use parentEventTarget as a way to determine how to do the
> propagation.
> One problem with only allowing the parent in the constructor is that
> it becomes read only. Most use cases for custom EventTargets that
> involve propagation also requires being able to reparent that objects.
>> We can either do that by inserting another interface which just
>> contains this new property. Or by adding the property on the instances
>> themselves. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it would
>> seem nice if we can still call the constructor 'EventTarget'.
> Another option is to allow manual propagation. It still requires that
> the EventTarget is extended so maybe it is just simple to have a new
> property?
> -- 
> erik

Something along these lines came up for mouse events generated within new Canvas APIs. I don't believe there's a need, but it was brought up by Benjamin and by Hixie on separate occasions.


Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 18:58:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:18 UTC